Key result
Hormone therapy effect estimates differed between RCT and observational datasets; an RCT placebo group had a higher risk of myocardial infarction (HR 1.37, p<0.0001) than an observational group.
Why the study?
Does hormone therapy affect the risk of myocardial infarction and stroke in postmenopausal women, and do observational studies provide reliable assessments compared to RCTs?
Observational (n=151,870)
Does hormone therapy affect the risk of myocardial infarction and stroke in postmenopausal women, and do observational studies provide reliable assessments compared to RCTs?
Even with extensive data collection, observational studies may not adequately adjust for confounding to match RCT results for hormone therapy effects on cardiovascular outcomes.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Observational studies may inadequately adjust for confounding in hormone therapy CV outcomes; challenges their equivalence to RCTs for postmenopausal risk assessment.
OBJECTIVES: Prospective observational studies (OSs) that collect adequate information about confounders can validly assess treatment consequences. However, what constitutes adequate information is unknown. This study investigated whether the extensive information collected by the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) in two OSs and two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was adequate. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of WHI data. Cox regression was used to select from all baseline risk factors those that best predicted outcome. Cox regression that included these risk factors was used for two types of analyses: (1) comparing RCT and OS assessments of the effects of hormone therapy on outcome for participants with specific characteristics and (2) evaluating whether adjustment for measured confounders could eliminate outcome differences among datasets. SETTING: The WHI included more than 800 baseline risk factors and outcomes during a median follow-up of 8 years. PARTICIPANTS: 151 870 postmenopausal women ages 50-79. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Myocardial infarction and stroke. RESULTS: RCT and OS results differed for the association of hormone therapy with outcome after adjusting for confounding factors and stratifying on factors that were hypothesised to modulate the effects of hormone therapy (eg, age and time since menopause) or that empirically modulated the effects of hormone therapy in this dataset (eg, blood pressure, previous coronary revascularisation and private medical insurance). Some of the four WHI datasets had significantly worse outcomes than others even after adjusting for risk and stratifying by type of hormone therapy, for example, the risk-adjusted HR for myocardial infarction was 1.37 (p<0.0001) in an RCT placebo group compared with an OS group not taking hormone therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Apparently the WHI did not collect sufficient information to give reliable assessments of treatment effects. If the WHI did not collect sufficient data, it is likely that few OSs collect sufficient information.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hartz et al. (2013) conducted an observational in Postmenopausal women (n=151,870). Hormone therapy vs. Placebo or no hormone therapy was evaluated on Myocardial infarction and stroke (HR 1.37, p=<0.0001). Hormone therapy effect estimates differed between RCT and observational datasets; an RCT placebo group had a higher risk of myocardial infarction (HR 1.37, p<0.0001) than an observational group.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: